Taking excessive prep for the 1ar can only get you so far. If you're doing a good job of preparing answers to the block arguments as they're being made, 1) you probably won't need too much more time to develop your 1ar, especially for the flows that were taken in the 2nc, because you have a whole 3 minutes of the negative not talking to prep, and 2) you probably won't have much more space to write in more arguments for your 1ar. The more prep time you take, the more likely you will be to put arguments on the flow you don't really need to make, and you might even start to push yourself over the time limit. If you're planning on not taking a lot of prep for the 1ar before the block even starts, you'll be inserting all of the grouping, and other efficient forms of line by line onto the flow already, and you don't need to wait for the block to be over to analyze the flow and figure out what your best arguments are. I guess consulting your partner might be a good idea if they're good, but don't waste too much prep time with this.
Of course, this is only my experience, and taking a lot of prep for the 1ar is probably a good thing for some people. If you don't feel completely confident about your 1ar winning you the round by the end of the block, don't force yourself to give a standup 1ar just because.

1) This doesn't answer the argument that if he understood it enough to respond to it, then it made some sense.
2) There were two periods in the post I made that you're referring to.
3) I still see no warrants as to why my statement didn't make sense. Everyone (you and Wilson) seems to understand what I said.
4) I never said that context doesn't matter, just that, "the context of Rusty's question does not provide a justification for why Garry's lack of specificity translates into the assumption of a Spokane context in the statement..." The key term is Garry's use of the word "people," when he says, "people who really want to win debate rounds (Wilson Faust) are at camp already for 4 weeks." The term "people" transcends the context of Rusty's inquiry by opening up the possibility of who people interested in winning debate rounds might be to those outside of Spokane.
5) It's not a question of whether or not Garry is trying to exclude people from outside of Spokane, but whether or not his discourse has the effect of excluding any people in general.
6) When I said, "If you read a vague plan text, you can't make the argument that the context of your solvency evidence clears things up." Obviously that means that I was saying that you can't legitimately make that argument, not that it wasn't physically possible. The analogy was used to explain that the context of the statements surrounding the original statement being discussed didn't penetrate the lack of specificity in that sentence.
7) I don't actually think that Garry is some big, opprssive monster that makes it his goal to exclude kids on cross-x. Obviously this whole debate is just a fun joke, but that doesn't change the fact that Garry's original discourse links to both of Dak's disads.
8) Extend subpoints 4 and 6
9) Extend subpoint 5.

Uh, yeah, it does. You responded to it, so obviously you had some understanding of what it said.
Um, like I was saying, even if you can prove that Garry's original post was made in a Spokane context, it wasn't worded as if it were, so it still links. If you read a vague plan text, you can't make the argument that the context of your solvency evidence clears things up.